Must all teens be tagged for some teen behavior at malls?
As a young woman about to turn 20, I enjoyed reading the recent article about the teenagers hanging out in malls ("At shopping malls, teens' hanging out is wearing thin," Aug. 11). But even though the article seemed like a straightforward news piece that gave equal treatment to both sides of the issue, the very last sentence suddenly became anti-teenager. The article elaborated on a quote from a "mall rat," who was speaking about being accompanied by a parent: " 'I mean, if I had to buy presents at Christmastime, I would,' he says - in other words, if he had actual shopping to do."
That little "in other words" is entirely inappropriate. If I had to be accompanied by my parents whenever I went to a mall, I would boycott that mall for the rest of my life.
Teenagers are abused far too often because the actions of a few are attributed to everyone, and that last statement made by the reporter was not made impartially. It serves only to contribute to this prejudiced idea. I do not use the word prejudice lightly.
An entire populace should not be punished due to the actions of a few.
I appreciated in general the Aug. 4 Opinion piece by David Gelernter, "Good citizenship: Grin and bear the profiling," but I can't believe he really thinks that the United States has made a real effort to end racial prejudice.
Racial prejudice is blatantly evident in all levels and aspects of American life. Yes, there has been much progress, but it was made only after much blood, sweat, and tears on the part of many minority groups. Racism is still alive and well in America. I pray that Mr. Gelernter's eyes become open to reality.
(The Rev.) Gloria Peters Wynn
The Aug. 10 article on Hillary Clinton, "NY fell for her, but will US voters?," does not paint a fair picture of New Yorkers. I live in upstate New York, and I would say that most people I meet on a regular basis do not support her. They did not, nor would they ever, vote for her. So the statement that we "fell for her" is a little off-base.
Also, the article quotes John Zogby as saying, "During the latter part of the '90s, during [the Monica Lewinsky scandal] and impeachment, she became a hero to traditional wives."
What is he talking about and where did he get that information from?
If I did the things that former President Clinton did, I'm sure my wife of 22 years would have drop-kicked me out the front door - and I would have deserved it!
Wouldn't that have been something if a sitting president had gotten booted out of the White House?
Yes, Mr. [Daniel] Schorr, the apostrophe police did notice the headline error in your Aug. 5 column, "Who's law will govern in Iraq?" This is all explained on page 61 of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" by Lynne Truss.
Actually, we at the Woodway Apostrophe Society are confident that a grammatically correct Monitor correspondent would never make such a grievous error.
We now believe the problem to be an artifact of some sort of computer grammar check thing for which no human person should be held responsible.
Also, we are informed that some letters to the editor are nothing better than bogus plagiarizations of boilerplate put out by political action organizations. No one need suspect that with this letter.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted will appear in print and on our website, www.csmonitor.com.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.